|
Science vs Science Fiction
Valefor.Sehachan
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2016-11-01 13:38:29
Can we please rename this thread in "Akson vs Science"?
By Kodaijin 2016-11-01 13:38:58
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 13:42:56
Sure thing. It's your thread. Carry on. Complete the Circle 1st
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 13:47:07
Can we please rename this thread in "Akson vs Science"? True or False
- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light
Explain to me again why Planets cannot orbit stars coming from direct opposite angles, criss crossing, w/o Theorycrafting upon the original Theorycrafting. Thanks.
If NASA thinks they need to invent a new Planet-X/9 existence just to help explain the orbit of Neptune. There might be something slightly off w/ the original philosophy to begin w/. Just saying.
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 13:52:27
If the facts support a theory, the theory will become more popular until it is disproven.
That's just how research and growth works.
Anytime you doubt a theory someone poses, google facts that disprove it and you can see why a theory is absolved. (Like flat earth theory was) Well then I alrdy mentioned one that contradicts Gravity controlling orbits. How many do you need exactly?
Is Einstein's Cross still a scientifically proven Fact or do we need to pretend EM does not exist just for such to be Truth?
By Kodaijin 2016-11-01 13:55:25
Completed the circle:
[+]
By Kodaijin 2016-11-01 13:56:00
Can we please rename this thread in "Akson vs Science"? True or False
- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light
Explain to me again why Planets cannot orbit stars coming from direct opposite angles, criss crossing, w/o Theorycrafting upon the original Theorycrafting. Thanks.
If NASA thinks they need to invent a new Planet-X/9 existence just to help explain the orbit of Neptune. There might be something slightly off w/ the original philosophy to begin w/. Just saying.
True or False
- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space TRUE
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits TRUE
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light TRUE
[+]
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 13:56:15
Completed the circle:
Theory = Reality
F.a.n.t.a.s.t.i.c
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2016-11-01 13:57:08
Frankly, Akron this entire head illustrates then need for you to do some experiments testing these theories you are disdaining.
There are tons of books and websites aimed at kids that will let you start with the basics and then move on to the more complicated math.....but you need the basics first.
Astrophysics for kids
https://www.astrosociety.org/education/hands-on-astronomy-activities/
Read, practice, and experiment.
[+]
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 13:58:19
Can we please rename this thread in "Akson vs Science"? True or False
- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light
Explain to me again why Planets cannot orbit stars coming from direct opposite angles, criss crossing, w/o Theorycrafting upon the original Theorycrafting. Thanks.
If NASA thinks they need to invent a new Planet-X/9 existence just to help explain the orbit of Neptune. There might be something slightly off w/ the original philosophy to begin w/. Just saying.
True or False
- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space TRUE
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits TRUE
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light TRUE I alrdy know about Einstein's Cross. GottaBelieve.jpg
Explain to me w/ links to the rest. You dont even have to explain yourself.
By Kodaijin 2016-11-01 13:59:38
Einstein Cross is a picture proving gravity bends light.
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 14:00:03
Einstein Cross is a picture proving gravity bends light. In Sci-Fi movies. Yessir.
Meanwhile we cannot prove here on earth that Gravity does such BUT we CAN showcase how EM can do exactly that which we vision Gravity as doing
By Kodaijin 2016-11-01 14:01:29
what does "Un Sci-Fi movies" mean?
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 14:04:45
Einstein Cross is a picture proving gravity bends light. Went over that a while back.... blatant ignorance of Science while leaning very heavily on Theories.
Just link the Proof to the other Questions cuz I know EM bends Light alrdy as is.
By Kodaijin 2016-11-01 14:07:19
this is reflective lensing in nature:
The trees seen in the water droplet are not inside the water droplet and the trees in the water droplet's reflection are not inside the water droplets reflection. The water bends the light in a way so that it appears as though the trees are inside the water droplet.
This is gravitational lensing.
The 4 big light dots on the outside are actually the same object. (a quasar) the light from the quasar was bent around a distant galaxy in the middle via lensing. similar to the water droplet. There arent 4 quasars. Only 1 and its directly behind the galaxy so without the lensing, we wouldnt be able to see it.
[+]
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 14:11:35
By Ramyrez 2016-11-01 14:13:00
Light isn't the only thing around here that needs to get bent.
Forum Moderator
サーバ: Excalibur
Game: FFXIV
Posts: 25993
By Anna Ruthven 2016-11-01 14:13:48
One time, I was playing basketball. When we were done, I spun the ball on the tip of my finger with such force, with such speed, that it attained its own gravitational pull. Everything in the park was quickly pulled into the ball, now broken down into itself into a black hole. I think the logic behind most of the questions being asked here was also sucked into this maelstrom.
By Kodaijin 2016-11-01 14:14:46
the generation and propagation of gravitational and electromagnetic radiation are basically quite similar. This is a major point in demystifying gravitational waves. But, on a more practical level, gravitational and electromagnetic waves are quite different: we see and use electromagnetic waves every day, while we have yet to make a confirmed direct detection of gravitational waves (which is why they seemed so mysterious in the first place).
There are two principal differences between gravity and electromagnetism, each with its own set of consequences for the nature and information content of its radiation, as described below.
Gravity is a weak force, but has only one sign of charge.
Electromagnetism is much stronger, but comes in two opposing signs of charge.
This is the most significant difference between gravity and electromagnetism, and is the main reason why we perceive these two phenomena so differently. It has several immediate consequences:
Significant gravitational fields are generated by accumulating bulk concentrations of matter. Electromagnetic fields are generated by slight imbalances caused by small (often microscopic) separations of charge.
Gravitational waves, similarly, are generated by the bulk motion of large masses, and will have wavelengths much longer than the objects themselves. Electromagnetic waves, meanwhile, are typically generated by small movements of charge pairs within objects, and have wavelengths much smaller than the objects themselves.
Gravitational waves are weakly interacting, making them extraordinarily difficult to detect; at the same time, they can travel unhindered through intervening matter of any density or composition. Electromagnetic waves are strongly interacting with normal matter, making them easy to detect; but they are readily absorbed or scattered by intervening matter.
Gravitational waves give holistic, sound-like information about the overall motions and vibrations of objects. Electromagnetic waves give images representing the aggregate properties of microscopic charges at the surfaces of objects.
Gravitational charge is equivalent to inertia.
Electromagnetic charge is unrelated to inertia.
This is the more fundamental difference between electromagnetism and gravity, and influences many of the details of gravitational radiation, but in itself is not responsible for the dramatic differences in how we perceive these two types of radiation. Most of the consequences of the principle of equivalence in gravity have already be discussed, such as:
The fundamental field of gravity is a gravitational force gradient (or tidal) field, and requires an apparatus spread out over some distance in order to detect it. The fundamental field in electromagnetism is an electric force field, which can be felt by individual charges within an apparatus.
The dominant mode of gravitational radiation is quadrupolar: it has a quadratic dependence on the positions of the generating charges, and causes a relative "shearing" of the positions of receiving charges. The dominant mode of electromagnetic radiation is dipolar: it has a linear dependence on the positions of the generating charges, and creates a relative translation of the positions of receiving charges.
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 14:15:18
Light isn't the only thing around here that needs to get bent. Obviously... why not go back and post your sources to your defemation of character rq about Tesla. Humor me.
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 521
By Odin.Geriond 2016-11-01 14:20:20
That picture is caused by the differing indexes of refraction between air and water, not by outside electromagnetic forces; there is no such medium in space, so no, they didn't.
It's 100% known to be gravity that does it in that quasar picture above.
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 14:21:38
This is a THEORY of gravity bending light.
This is gravitational lensing.
The 4 big light dots on the outside are actually the same object. (a quasar) the light from the quasar was bent around a distant galaxy in the middle via lensing. similar to the water droplet. There arent 4 quasars. Only 1 and its directly behind the galaxy so without the lensing, we wouldnt be able to see it. Please just show me the Science behind.
Can we please rename this thread in "Akson vs Science"? True or False
- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light
Explain to me again why Planets cannot orbit stars coming from direct opposite angles, criss crossing, w/o Theorycrafting upon the original Theorycrafting. Thanks.
If NASA thinks they need to invent a new Planet-X/9 existence just to help explain the orbit of Neptune. There might be something slightly off w/ the original philosophy to begin w/. Just saying.
True or False
- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space TRUE
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits TRUE
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light TRUE 1st and 2nd Question plz post evidence.
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2016-11-01 14:21:41
Bismarck.Josiahfk said: »Can we please rename this thread in "Akson vs Science"? True or False
- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light
Explain to me again why Planets cannot orbit stars coming from direct opposite angles, criss crossing, w/o Theorycrafting upon the original Theorycrafting. Thanks.
If NASA thinks they need to invent a new Planet-X/9 existence just to help explain the orbit of Neptune. There might be something slightly off w/ the original philosophy to begin w/. Just saying.
True or False
- Gravity has been PROVEN to exist in Space TRUE
- Gravity has been PROVEN to control all Orbits TRUE
- Gravity has been PROVEN to bend Light TRUE I alrdy know about Einstein's Cross. GottaBelieve.jpg
Explain to me w/ links to the rest. You dont even have to explain yourself. We had people go to the moon and exactly according to the calculations for gravity, pinpoint their weight and the force of newtons needed to launch a spacecraft from the moon to return to earth.
And if that spaceship did nothing, gravity would pull it back towards the moon and it would crash, just like gravity here. Exactly calculated escape velocity needed and everything before even leaving earth.
We also have a space station in oribit, satellites, and have landed on a moving comet.
YouTube Video Placeholder
Obviously, we know nothing about how gravity works in space.
Edited
Siren.Mosin
By Siren.Mosin 2016-11-01 14:26:38
This thread continues to not disappoint. Do carry on.
[+]
Forum Moderator
サーバ: Excalibur
Game: FFXIV
Posts: 25993
By Anna Ruthven 2016-11-01 14:28:23
ITT:
Siren.Akson
サーバ: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2172
By Siren.Akson 2016-11-01 14:29:02
That picture is caused by the differing indexes of refraction between air and water, not by outside electromagnetic forces; there is no such medium in space, so no, they didn't.
It's 100% known to be gravity that does it in that quasar picture above.
Really now?....
Quote: A new experiment has achieved extraordinarily large negative refractive indices for radio frequency light.
In this case, the highest index of refraction was achieved for frequencies around 10GHz, well within the radio portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The authors' model to explain the phenomenon is quasi-Newtonian: the light waves accelerate the electrons, which produce a new electromagnetic wave perpendicular to the original one.
YouTube Video Placeholder YouTube Video Placeholder YouTube Video Placeholder
Kepler-186f Planet for Alien
YouTube Video Placeholder
I find this all to be extremely fascinating....
Kepler NASA planet hunter back online
|
|